Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus:"But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Mikey1969:Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Note that a 4yo doesn't have comprehension of why: usually the answer is followed with another why that indicates a kid just likes knowing there is an ultimate reason for something without understanding the intermediate causes.

Fano:Mikey1969: Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Note that a 4yo doesn't have comprehension of why: usually the answer is followed with another why that indicates a kid just likes knowing there is an ultimate reason for something without understanding the intermediate causes.

Mine does... The second 'Why' is very specific, and only happens at certain times. She also listens to the explanation and can recite at least part of it later on. And she never asks again as to 'Why' whatever thing she is asking about happens. I think she also has a 'how' in there as well. In addition, she was using tools that she had to find in other rooms when she was 3, and is already planning out movies with her stuffed animals after I showed how to do stop motion animation one afternoon.

Commonsense has eluded AI engineers because it requires both a very large collection of facts and what Sloan calls implicit facts-things so obvious that we don't know we know them. A computer may know the temperature at which water freezes, but we know that ice is cold.

"All of us know a huge number of things," said Sloan. "As babies, we crawled around and yanked on things and learned that things fall. We yanked on other things and learned that dogs and cats don't appreciate having their tails pulled." Life is a rich learning environment.

So? The solution should be obvious...attach the AI's to a mobile node with vision, hearing, and other mammalian sensors and turn it loose in a preschool environment. It'll pick up on commonsense and implicit knowledge. Leaving it locked up in a lab interacting with techs and scientists is about as effective as doing the same with a human toddler.

Stone Meadow:Commonsense has eluded AI engineers because it requires both a very large collection of facts and what Sloan calls implicit facts-things so obvious that we don't know we know them. A computer may know the temperature at which water freezes, but we know that ice is cold.

"All of us know a huge number of things," said Sloan. "As babies, we crawled around and yanked on things and learned that things fall. We yanked on other things and learned that dogs and cats don't appreciate having their tails pulled." Life is a rich learning environment.

So? The solution should be obvious...attach the AI's to a mobile node with vision, hearing, and other mammalian sensors and turn it loose in a preschool environment. It'll pick up on commonsense and implicit knowledge. Leaving it locked up in a lab interacting with techs and scientists is about as effective as doing the same with a human toddler.

I was wondering something like this myself. Could a robot with AI learn things like common sense if it was allowed to do the things a human child would do? It would be pretty damn impressive to see a robot with near zero common sense spending a few months 'living' and thus acquiring similar common sense to that of a child.

The sound of one hand clapping:Stone Meadow: The solution should be obvious...attach the AI's to a mobile node with vision, hearing, and other mammalian sensors and turn it loose in a preschool environment. It'll pick up on commonsense and implicit knowledge. Leaving it locked up in a lab interacting with techs and scientists is about as effective as doing the same with a human toddler.

I was wondering something like this myself. Could a robot with AI learn things like common sense if it was allowed to do the things a human child would do? It would be pretty damn impressive to see a robot with near zero common sense spending a few months 'living' and thus acquiring similar common sense to that of a child.

Exactly. I can even see the node in my mind's eye: a short cylinder with eyes, ears, a 'happy face, a soft tactile arm/hand thingie and wheels to get around on, and wifi to communicate with the AI. It'd be bullying kids for lunch money the first month... ;^)

Mikey1969:Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

What is even better is when the why's die off and you throw it back at them. When you have a preschooler give you a fairly nuanced answer for "Well why do you think that occured" can make the buttons pop off your shirt.

I personally love it when my oldest, nearly 5, asks "Why." Because then I get to explain why. Of course, it contributes to his impression that explanations are basically logorhea. On the other hand, 5.

Fano:Mikey1969: Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Note that a 4yo doesn't have comprehension of why: usually the answer is followed with another why that indicates a kid just likes knowing there is an ultimate reason for something without understanding the intermediate causes.

I'm certainly not going to say "my kid is some super special snowflake" but she absolutely understands the "why" in a lot of situations.

One thing I've found is that children are WAY smarter than we expect them to be. Every once in a while, they'll pop off with something like yesterday when my four year old asked me what psychology was.

meanmutton:Fano: Mikey1969: Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Note that a 4yo doesn't have comprehension of why: usually the answer is followed with another why that indicates a kid just likes knowing there is an ultimate reason for something without understanding the intermediate causes.

I'm certainly not going to say "my kid is some super special snowflake" but she absolutely understands the "why" in a lot of situations.

One thing I've found is that children are WAY smarter than we expect them to be. Every once in a while, they'll pop off with something like yesterday when my four year old asked me what psychology was.

Technically children are usually more intelligent than adults. But adults tend to have greater access to knowledge, and a more refined sense of context. It's easy to feel like you're smarter than someone because they're ignorant and clueless, but when given a problem where you can't bring that knowledge and experience to bear, your child will beat the pants off you.

Mikey1969:In addition, she was using tools that she had to find in other rooms when she was 3, and is already planning out movies with her stuffed animals after I showed how to do stop motion animation one afternoon.

MIne was composing piano concertos at 2 weeks and by six months had a double phd from MIT...

Cubicle Jockey:Mikey1969: In addition, she was using tools that she had to find in other rooms when she was 3, and is already planning out movies with her stuffed animals after I showed how to do stop motion animation one afternoon.

MIne was composing piano concertos at 2 weeks and by six months had a double phd from MIT...

Stone Meadow:So? The solution should be obvious...attach the AI's to a mobile node with vision, hearing, and other mammalian sensors and turn it loose in a preschool environment. It'll pick up on commonsense and implicit knowledge. Leaving it locked up in a lab interacting with techs and scientists is about as effective as doing the same with a human toddler.

Robots still don't know how to "see" like we do.

To them, an object must be close to the platonic idea of what an object is. To a real four year old, an upside down cardboard box with a plastic tea service on it is OBVIOUSLY a table set for tea and cakes at noon with Ms. Flopsytail, but the AI will even have trouble identifying the components of that tableau unless they almost exactly match the shapes it has been taught represent objects.

If the AI was anything comparable to a 4 year old - they would have completely redefined the entire field of AI. A computer that is self-aware, that has feelings, thoughts, and ideas - at a 4-year old's level would be *amazing*.

My son was actually a less picky eater at 4 years old. He'd actually try stuff like squid, clams, various ethnic foods, etc. Now, at eight years old, he just says he doesn't like something before he's tried it.

If the AI was anything comparable to a 4 year old - they would have completely redefined the entire field of AI. A computer that is self-aware, that has feelings, thoughts, and ideas - at a 4-year old's level would be *amazing*.

This AI is not that.

All of those are based on experiential learning. Even my dog possesses these qualities, in varying degrees. This AI sounds like the programming was deterministic.

RedVentrue:Expert programs will continue to get smarter, but I don't think strong AI are possible.

I don't think modeling AI on human processes is possible, nor desirable. Human perception is limited, our thought processes may lead to incorrect conclusions, and feelings are necessary for thoughts and ideas.

Fano:Mikey1969: Is this viewed as a bad or a good thing? Me, I'm rather impressed... 4 years old is when kids start to take off, they have mastered speech, and are able to understand new things...

simplicimus: "But ConceptNet 4 did dramatically worse than average on comprehension-the 'why' questions," he said.

Sounds like a 4 year old to me.

You haven't met my daughter... "Why"? about everything, and the things she really wants to know about she bookends with "Why"?. "Daddy, why did Mommy's car stop working? Why?" That second 'Why' even has a specific tone of voice that separates it from the rest of the sentence...

Note that a 4yo doesn't have comprehension of why: usually the answer is followed with another why that indicates a kid just likes knowing there is an ultimate reason for something without understanding the intermediate causes.

I'd say that in and of itself speaks to a certain level of intelligence, albeit a bored one perhaps.

Age four is about where my early memory becomes as lucid as it is today. I don't have any trouble remembering what it was like to be four--and the chocolate-frosted cake for my fourth birthday was awesome, even if there were no guests--so I can safely say if I was representative of the average four-year-old (I wasn't) then the machines would already be taking over, if TFA were true.

If the AI was anything comparable to a 4 year old - they would have completely redefined the entire field of AI. A computer that is self-aware, that has feelings, thoughts, and ideas - at a 4-year old's level would be *amazing*.

This AI is not that.

Yes, it's a guarantee that this AI is nowhere near as intelligent as a 4 year old. What's they've done is design an AI which can do as well on an IQ test as a 4 year old. In other words, it's been designed to answer IQ test questions of the type given to young children.

I really wish they would stop using the term "artificial intelligence", because the "intelligence" part of it takes on a variety of positive and negative colloquial meanings depending on it's context, and it's audience. I wish they would use a more non-anthropomorphic term such as "machine intelligence", or "super-optimizer", which really is what technology is about; finding the best path to goal fulfillment.

therealburkazoid:I really wish they would stop using the term "artificial intelligence", because the "intelligence" part of it takes on a variety of positive and negative colloquial meanings depending on it's context, and it's audience. I wish they would use a more non-anthropomorphic term such as "machine intelligence", or "super-optimizer", which really is what technology is about; finding the best path to goal fulfillment.

Effing trans-humanist agenda...

This AI experimentation seems to be a solution in search of a problem. What is needed is an machine "intellect" that can perceive, analyze and take action in variable and new environments unsuitable to humans, and do so autonomously. This may require additional attributes, perhaps some sense of self preservation and the ability to reason, but need not be a replica of human intellect.

/My dogs are pretty intelligent, but only in areas that pertain to being a dog. That's all the intelligence they require.

"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of Sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion."

simplicimus:RedVentrue: Expert programs will continue to get smarter, but I don't think strong AI are possible.

I don't think modeling AI on human processes is possible, nor desirable. Human perception is limited, our thought processes may lead to incorrect conclusions, and feelings are necessary for thoughts and ideas.

I agree. I'm just saying that a program that can reason, be capable of indepentent thought, and learning are just going to be beyond our reach. At least without some biological component.